Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

[Bouleversee]

The article omits to mention that nobody over age 55 was in the "half dose" group for which 90% success was claimed. Such a group would be at less risk anyway.

You are saying those NOT over 55 are in the "at less risk" group - just to be clear!

If AZN have to perform a do-over to get to the numbers the regulators want, at least outside the UK, then this hands a disadvantage to AZN.

And if there is any chance the US regulator will not approve it, then that will really be a slap in the face. I would want a different vaccine in that case.

It seems likely to put the date back for this vaccine. I would still take it if the trials all go well.

I understood Lootman to be saying that the half-dose group of under 55s would be in the "at less risk group", which is obviously correct. Hopefully, when they do further trials including the elderly and possibly those with underlying disease, it will be found to be equally successful but since the plan was to give the elderly first dibs, it does seem somewhat remiss not to have included any of them. However, perhaps they were putting caution and protection before speed and maybe it makes sense to do it in stages. Is there any reason why approval could not be staged according to categories as well?

[GoSeigen]

AstraZeneca now announced a further global trial.

[

A Global trial. Whoo! Impressive...


GS
[P.S. Probably means they will use "expendables" as guinea pigs...]

[GoSeigen]

Poor article which doesn't debunk anything, let alone what was originally being said (e.g. Pillar 2 is not mentioned at all in the article).

If anyone can discover why the article should be expected to even mention "Pillar 2", perhaps they can let us know.

If Mike claims 90% of London buses are red and someone else debunks this in a Huff Post article "Its a Myth that 90% of Buses are Red" by pointing out that obviously there are far more yellow buses in the US than any other colour and the US is has by far the most buses in the world -- then that would look a bit like the earlier quoted article. And some people would think the article makes perfect sense because they refuse to read Mike's writings.

GS

[johnhemming]

Poor article which doesn't debunk anything, let alone what was originally being said (e.g. Pillar 2 is not mentioned at all in the article).

If anyone can discover why the article should be expected to even mention "Pillar 2", perhaps they can let us know.

Anyone who has tried to study the details of how the testing regime operates would know this. On the other hand if you simply wish to be a cheer leader for the government chosen version of Truth then no studying is required.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ology-note

[servodude]

Probably means they will use "expendables" as guinea pigs

Great idea!
Once it meets Van Damme he will sort it out; if only Belgium had called him earlier!

-sd

[tjh290633]

I suspect "County" or similar is used for simplicity, not because of a notional argument about marginal travel. We have already seen many instances of how "complicated" doesn't work. So, some will feel they are in the wrong tier, and have a grievance about it. I suspect if you want perfection you will be waiting a very long time.

(I suspect the IOW considers itself part of the South of England, possibly Cornwall too, but even if not I don't agree that parts can't be tier 1, with others higher. Kent being tier 3 suggest otherwise unless you think going the other way is different somehow.)

The anomaly is that Slough being in Tier 3 has not put the whole of Berkshire, or should it be Buckinghamshire, into Tier 3.
Why can they do that and not limit Tier 3 in Kent to Swale, Sittingbourne and Thanet?

TJH

[redsturgeon]

I suspect "County" or similar is used for simplicity, not because of a notional argument about marginal travel. We have already seen many instances of how "complicated" doesn't work. So, some will feel they are in the wrong tier, and have a grievance about it. I suspect if you want perfection you will be waiting a very long time.

(I suspect the IOW considers itself part of the South of England, possibly Cornwall too, but even if not I don't agree that parts can't be tier 1, with others higher. Kent being tier 3 suggest otherwise unless you think going the other way is different somehow.)

The anomaly is that Slough being in Tier 3 has not put the whole of Berkshire, or should it be Buckinghamshire, into Tier 3.
Why can they do that and not limit Tier 3 in Kent to Swale, Sittingbourne and Thanet?

TJH

Lots of "important" people live around that part of Berks and Bucks.

Not so many in the Kent countryside.

John

[dealtn]

I suspect "County" or similar is used for simplicity, not because of a notional argument about marginal travel. We have already seen many instances of how "complicated" doesn't work. So, some will feel they are in the wrong tier, and have a grievance about it. I suspect if you want perfection you will be waiting a very long time.

(I suspect the IOW considers itself part of the South of England, possibly Cornwall too, but even if not I don't agree that parts can't be tier 1, with others higher. Kent being tier 3 suggest otherwise unless you think going the other way is different somehow.)

The anomaly is that Slough being in Tier 3 has not put the whole of Berkshire, or should it be Buckinghamshire, into Tier 3.
Why can they do that and not limit Tier 3 in Kent to Swale, Sittingbourne and Thanet?

TJH

I agree that's odd.

[tjh290633]

I suspect "County" or similar is used for simplicity, not because of a notional argument about marginal travel. We have already seen many instances of how "complicated" doesn't work. So, some will feel they are in the wrong tier, and have a grievance about it. I suspect if you want perfection you will be waiting a very long time.

(I suspect the IOW considers itself part of the South of England, possibly Cornwall too, but even if not I don't agree that parts can't be tier 1, with others higher. Kent being tier 3 suggest otherwise unless you think going the other way is different somehow.)

The anomaly is that Slough being in Tier 3 has not put the whole of Berkshire, or should it be Buckinghamshire, into Tier 3.
Why can they do that and not limit Tier 3 in Kent to Swale, Sittingbourne and Thanet?

TJH

I agree that's odd.

I suspect that Slough is a Unitary authority. But there are probably others elsewhere which have been swept up in a bigger authority.

TJH

[77ss]

......
The anomaly is that Slough being in Tier 3 has not put the whole of Berkshire, or should it be Buckinghamshire, into Tier 3.
Why can they do that and not limit Tier 3 in Kent to Swale, Sittingbourne and Thanet?

TJH

Government by whim! As it as been all along.

[swill453]

The anomaly is that Slough being in Tier 3 has not put the whole of Berkshire, or should it be Buckinghamshire, into Tier 3.
Why can they do that and not limit Tier 3 in Kent to Swale, Sittingbourne and Thanet?

They do have a page where they set out their reasons https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/ ... d-approach
e.g.

Kent & Medway
Very high (tier 3)
Case rates are high and continuing to rise with large increases in case rates in almost all areas in the last 7 days. Some of the highest case rates in the country are currently seen in Kent. Rising case rates in people aged over 60 are a particular concern. Positivity is also increasing in 10 of the 13 lower tier local authorities. Kent And Medway STP are reporting hospital admissions are increasing and mutual aid necessary across the county.

Scott.

[XFool]

Poor article which doesn't debunk anything, let alone what was originally being said (e.g. Pillar 2 is not mentioned at all in the article).

If anyone can discover why the article should be expected to even mention "Pillar 2", perhaps they can let us know.

If Mike claims 90% of London buses are red and someone else debunks this in a Huff Post article "Its a Myth that 90% of Buses are Red" by pointing out that obviously there are far more yellow buses in the US than any other colour and the US is has by far the most buses in the world -- then that would look a bit like the earlier quoted article.

If "Mike" claimed 90% of London buses were red, I'd start to think I ought to go looking for some London buses.

And some people would think the article makes perfect sense because they refuse to read Mike's writings.

Trouble is, I have read some of Mike's "writings". With "Mike" I tend to use the 'Look out the window test' (metaphorically speaking).

1. There is no pandemic, it was all over by the summer - Look out the window

But this is the whole issue, isn't it?

2. There is "no second wave" - Look out the window

Even as most places are on their second wave and the US at least appears to be on their third wave. Yeah, I know, if it's a "seasonal wave, it isn't a wave etc."

3. Viruses don't do "second waves, it would be in the literature if they did" - Look out the window

See 2 above. Plus why did the 1918 pandemic have at least two and likely three documented waves? And no! Please don't explain why that was, the point is just what was. Plus, if viruses don't do waves, why does the World Health Organization (WHO) influenza pandemic phase descriptions go up to "Possible new wave" before it gets to "Post-pandemic"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandemic#Stages

https://web.archive.org/web/20200421161230/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK143061/
"During the post-peak period, pandemic disease levels in most countries with adequate surveillance will have dropped below peak observed levels. The post-peak period signifies that pandemic activity appears to be decreasing; however, it is uncertain if additional waves will occur and countries will need to be prepared for a second wave.

Previous pandemics have been characterized by waves of activity spread over months. Once the level of disease activity drops, a critical communications task will be to balance this information with the possibility of another wave. Pandemic waves can be separated by months and an immediate “at-ease” signal may be premature."

4. Everyone who recovers from a virus is immune thereafter - Look out the window

He also uses the notion that exposure to any coronovirus confers immunity to other coronoviruses - e.g. cold viruses.
So.... As we've all had colds in the pasts, does this mean nobody can catch COVID-19? And personally, I KNOW I have had more than one cold in my life!

So how seriously are we expected to take "Mike" and his writing?
Just to bang on further with that "no second wave" theme, I leave you with this:

Daily New Cases in Sweden

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/

[johnhemming]

As we've all had colds in the pasts, does this mean nobody can catch COVID-19? And personally, I KNOW I have had more than one cold in my life!

Obviously not. There are a number of coronaviruses that cause colds, but more colds are caused by rhinoviruses than any other type of virus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_cold

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhinovirus

Otherwise you are I assume aware that coronaviruses are more virulent in certain seasons.

In a strict senses viruses do Gompertz Curves rather than waves. However, that is a rather subtle argument that is best not made.

[dealtn]

He also uses the notion that exposure to any coronovirus confers immunity to other coronoviruses - e.g. cold viruses.
So.... As we've all had colds in the pasts, does this mean nobody can catch COVID-19? And personally, I KNOW I have had more than one cold in my life!

Maybe you need to investigate the difference between "cold viruses" and coronaviruses.

[XFool]

He also uses the notion that exposure to any coronovirus confers immunity to other coronoviruses - e.g. cold viruses.
So.... As we've all had colds in the pasts, does this mean nobody can catch COVID-19? And personally, I KNOW I have had more than one cold in my life!

Maybe you need to investigate the difference between "cold viruses" and coronaviruses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronavirus#Common_cold

"The human coronaviruses HCoV-OC43, HCoV-HKU1, HCoV-229E, and HCoV-NL63 continually circulate in the human population and produce the generally mild symptoms of the common cold in adults and children worldwide"

So is the argument that so few people in the UK have been exposed to coronoviruses via "colds" that we ARE vulnerable to a novel coronavirus, or that so many people in the UK have been exposed to coronaviruses via "colds" that we are NOT vulnerable to a novel coronovirus?

Then again, if I have recovered from any rhinovirus, why am I not immune to any other rhinovirus. So again, how is it possible to get colds more than once (or twice!).

For myself, I have not the slightest idea. Perhaps people should be seeking answers to such questions from "Mike"? I would simply advise asking for solid evidence.

[dealtn]

He also uses the notion that exposure to any coronovirus confers immunity to other coronoviruses - e.g. cold viruses.
So.... As we've all had colds in the pasts, does this mean nobody can catch COVID-19? And personally, I KNOW I have had more than one cold in my life!

Maybe you need to investigate the difference between "cold viruses" and coronaviruses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronavirus#Common_cold

"The human coronaviruses HCoV-OC43, HCoV-HKU1, HCoV-229E, and HCoV-NL63 continually circulate in the human population and produce the generally mild symptoms of the common cold in adults and children worldwide"

So is the argument that so few people in the UK have been exposed to coronoviruses via "colds" that we ARE vulnerable to a novel coronavirus, or that so many people in the UK have been exposed to coronaviruses via "colds" that we are NOT vulnerable to a novel coronovirus?

Then again, if I have recovered from any rhinovirus, why am I not immune to any other rhinovirus. So again, how is it possible to get colds more than once (or twice!).

For myself, I have not the slightest idea. Perhaps people should be seeking answers to such questions from "Mike"? I would simply advise asking for solid evidence.

I was just pointing out that coronaviruses make up only around 10% of common colds. I have no idea what was said by the "author" you are attacking, but your "attack" doesn't hold logically if how you seek to dismiss it is by arguing people get more than one cold in their lifetime, therefore it can't be true that getting a coronavirus gives (some) protection from other coronaviruses.

[johnhemming]

So is the argument that so few people in the UK have been exposed to coronoviruses via "colds" that we ARE vulnerable to a novel
coronavirus, or that so many people in the UK have been exposed to coronaviruses via "colds" that we are NOT vulnerable to a novel coronovirus?

The people in the UK who have had a coronavirus are most likely going to have t-lymphocyte immunity to covid. Some may also have antibodies that react to covid. Those people are immune to it and not susceptible.

For those that do not have that immunity it helps because it reduces the level to which the disease infects people as it bring the Herd Immunity Threshold down.

Then again, if I have recovered from any rhinovirus, why am I not immune to any other rhinovirus. So again, how is it possible to get colds more than once (or twice!).

I don't know about research into cross immunity with Rhinoviruses (which cause about 50% of colds).

For myself, I have not the slightest idea. Perhaps people should be seeking answers to such questions from "Mike"? I would simply advise asking for solid evidence.

There is solid evidence that there is cross immunity between coronaviruses. Then again Sage ignore this evidence.

[GoSeigen]

So how seriously are we expected to take "Mike" and his writing?
Just to bang on further with that "no second wave" theme, I leave you with this:

Daily New Cases in Sweden

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/

Ohhhhh we're only talking about cases [amorphous number] not deaths! As someone said some time ago, there are more cases because there is more testing. About the few coherent things he's uttered, though the way he expressed it was pretty weird.



Take a look at that Sweden data again and scan past the cases and look at the chart of total deaths. Then click the log button, then try to figure out where the second wave is?

There is no second wave. The total number of deaths to within an order of magnitude was determined in the first two to three months. The number of deaths may double once or twice from here, but we know pretty much for certain there will NOT be 50 million deaths [spanish flu] from this virus. I'd be willing to bet half my net worth there will be about 1/10th as many -- in fact that's pretty much how I am invested.

So what are we so scared of still?

Regards the window, my grandad used to say "Two men behind bars, one saw mud, the other stars".


GS
[It could be argued there was a first wave in Jan-Feb in China when deaths doubled 20 times, then a second wave March-Apr when deaths doubled 10 times, the virus rapidly spread worldwide. In the ensuing seven months deaths have doubled just three times, with a pretty linear increase]

[XFool]

I was just pointing out that coronaviruses make up only around 10% of common colds. I have no idea what was said by the "author" you are attacking, but your "attack" doesn't hold logically if how you seek to dismiss it is by arguing people get more than one cold in their lifetime, therefore it can't be true that getting a coronavirus gives (some) protection from other coronaviruses.

It may well be illogical, but is it any more implausible than the argument we are currently undergoing a 'pseudemic' - because we must now all be COVID-19 immune, due to the earlier wave combined with immunity from other coronaviruses?

Plus it is now all down to the scientific and medical establishment being totally incompetent (or even corrupt if you believe "Mike").

[dealtn]

I was just pointing out that coronaviruses make up only around 10% of common colds. I have no idea what was said by the "author" you are attacking, but your "attack" doesn't hold logically if how you seek to dismiss it is by arguing people get more than one cold in their lifetime, therefore it can't be true that getting a coronavirus gives (some) protection from other coronaviruses.

It may well be illogical, but is it any more implausible than the argument we are currently undergoing a 'pseudemic' - because we must now all be COVID-19 immune, due to the earlier wave combined with immunity from other coronaviruses?

Plus it is now all down to the scientific and medical establishment being totally incompetent (or even corrupt if you believe "Mike").

You are arguing with the wrong person. I certainly don't make those claims, and I am not aware of anyone that actually does. Frankly I am cautious of using terms such as "all", "totally", "must", etc.

I am happy to believe there is a spectrum of opinion on most topics, but it is rare to experience someone inhabiting the absolute extremes like you suggest. Maybe in this instance they exist and I am unaware of it, but I suspect you might be just as guilty of hyperbole in how you describe their position which you clearly don't agree with.